W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2002

unspoken URI axioms

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 20 Nov 2002 13:05:58 -0600
To: www-archive@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1037819160.1582.122.camel@jammer>

Not sure whether to take this up in www-tag or uri@w3.org, but
before I forget...

TBL: RFC2396 dioes indeed not say that xxx/./yyy is equivalnet to
xxx/yyy fopr any xxx and yyy. However, the only tenable situation is
that they are equivalent. because we require that any URI can be
relative-ized and absolute-ized back to its original. That is an
(unspoken) axiom.When you relative-ize things and re-absolutize then,
you cannot distinguih between the two, and so they HAVE to be
equivalent. The URI spec should say that.

TBL: We need to write down the axioms: if you take a URI, make it
relative w.r.t. a base URI, then make it absolute w.r.t. the same base
URI, you get the same starting URI..."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2002/11/18-tag-summary

I started working on that a while ago, and ran into
exactly the issue you're talking about...

        combine(i1, wrt(u2, i1)) = u2; % @@yikes! not always true!
x/../y case
  -- http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/URI.lsl

I think I should flesh this out with a real example
and a from-the-text argument that the URI RFC is
lacking in this respect before I send this
to uri@w3.org.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 14:06:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:16 UTC